NHPR: "how many pieces of ID will we need?"

[Dave Ridley]

http://www.nhpr.org/node/11464

How Many Pieces of ID Will We Need
Julie Donnelly's picture
By Julie Donnelly on Thursday, September 21, 2006.
listen: Listen with Windows Media PlayerListen with an MP3 Player

Republicans in Washington are in a pre-election push to show voters they are serious about national security.

One aspect of protecting national security is monitoring just who is in the country.

Several initiatives proposed over the last two years would create new systems for making sure people are who they say they are.

NHPR correspondent Julie Donnelly reports on where New Hampshire's Congressmen stand on how much identification we need.
? login or register to post comments | 297 reads
Related news:

Thursday, October 12, 2006
Odds Don't Favor Shea-Porter's Run for Congress

Saturday, September 30, 2006
New Hampshire Residents March for Peace in Concord

Monday, September 18, 2006
2006 Congressional Race Preview
Related shows:

Thursday, October 5, 2006
The United Nations' Future

Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Ballot Question One: Eminent Domain

Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Nancy Drew: The Legacy of a Girl Detective
see more >>

    New Hampshire's congressmen were two of just three Republicans who voted against a bill that would require voters to show a photo ID at polling stations.

    While Democrats feared the bill would disenfranchise the poor, disabled, or elderly who may not have a photo ID, Congressman Charles Bass' reason for opposing the bill was quite different.

    "Voting should be a state's rights issue. We have a good system in New Hampshire. If there are problems in Florida or Ohio, leave them to Florida and Ohio to resolve."

    Both Congressmen say New Hampshire's voting system is just not amenable to requiring photo IDs. New Hampshire has same day registration, it does not have a motor voter law, and it has a constitutional requirement to seat the legislture by a certain date. These features could be in jeopardy, if say, ballots had to be thrown out due to questionable photo IDS.

    But Both New Hampshire Congressmen last year supported the Real ID act which would create new requirements for drivers' licenses and state ID cards. Congressman Jeb Bradley says that while voting should be left to the states - national security must be handled by the feds.

    "The 9/11 commission wrote that travel documents are just as important to terrorists, as weapons. Of the 19 highjackers on 9/11, there were 60 state IDs among them"

    The real ID act is to go into effect in May of 2008. Already, state officials are calling foul. They say they just can't get the required technology, the increase in staff, etc, by the deadline. They also say that the program will cost eleven billion dollars - not a penny of which has been appropriated yet.

    And while most people view a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles on a par with root canal - critics of Real ID say it will only get worse under the new requirements.

    A new study says wait times could at least double. And if the Voter ID bill passes the Senate too, there will be even more people seeking IDS.

    Tom Wolfeson from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrations says its a looming disaster.

    "what we're doing here is setting up a scenario where the wheels are going to stop turning and the demand is going to be more than the capacity that exists to meet it"

    Oh, and if you're a New Hampshire resident who makes frequent trips to Canada, you may find yourself with another card in your wallet.
    \
    Members of Congress from border states want frequest travelers to have the option of buying a 25 dollar passcard, instead of having to show a passport at the border.

    All of these ID initiatives have civil liberties groups worried that soon, everyone will have to carry one uniform national ID card.

    But second district Republican Charles Bass says - don't bet on it.

    "That's like throwing out mother and apple pie into the trash at the same time. We do not carry identity papers in the United States. When we think about that we think about nazi Germany and unpleasant things. In America, you are free to be anonymous, as long as you don't break the law."

    Republicans and Democrats alike in WAshington are concerned about the political ramifications of a single national ID card. But state officials are more preoccupied with the practical ramifications of trying to produce a multitude of different IDS

[error]

I sure as hell don't carry identity papers. And I don't plan to do so, either.

[aries]

well once your passport is consolidated into your ultrasecure eRealID youll only need one

[Posterity]

    But second district Republican Charles Bass says - don't bet on it.

    "That's like throwing out mother and apple pie into the trash at the same time. We do not carry identity papers in the United States. When we think about that we think about nazi Germany and unpleasant things. In America, you are free to be anonymous, as long as you don't break the law."

...or fly on commercial airliners.

With all due respect, Congressman Bass, "papers please" is effectively what the TSA agents are saying when they ask to see my ID before allowing me to proceed to the gate.  I am not free to be anonymous in that case, and yet I'm not breaking any laws.  I have simply paid a privately-owned company to transport me from Point A to Point B.  And for that, I am stopped at a government checkpoint, required to show identification, and perhaps subject to a search as if I was being investigated for a crime.

You're right, Congressman Bass, when I think about that, it is most unpleasant.  Can I count on you to do something about it in Congress or should I expect more platitudes about mom and apple pie?

[error]

I'd like to see Congressman Bass try to fly without some sort of government-issued identification. Actually I want to be there and take pictures, but the TSA would take a dim view of that...

As for me, I simply refuse to show identification to travel within the U.S. It's just not going to happen. (The fact that I don't HAVE any might have something to do with it.)

[aries]

I'd like to see Congressman Bass try to fly without some sort of government-issued identification. Actually I want to be there and take pictures, but the TSA would take a dim view of that...

As for me, I simply refuse to show identification to travel within the U.S. It's just not going to happen. (The fact that I don't HAVE any might have something to do with it.)

Cameraphones without flash almost never go detected... good for surveillance, even video

[maineiac]

I sure as hell don't carry identity papers. And I don't plan to do so, either.

I'm with you!

+1

[eques]

    But second district Republican Charles Bass says - don't bet on it.

    "That's like throwing out mother and apple pie into the trash at the same time. We do not carry identity papers in the United States. When we think about that we think about nazi Germany and unpleasant things. In America, you are free to be anonymous, as long as you don't break the law."

...or fly on commercial airliners.

With all due respect, Congressman Bass, "papers please" is effectively what the TSA agents are saying when they ask to see my ID before allowing me to proceed to the gate.  I am not free to be anonymous in that case, and yet I'm not breaking any laws.  I have simply paid a privately-owned company to transport me from Point A to Point B.  And for that, I am stopped at a government checkpoint, required to show identification, and perhaps subject to a search as if I was being investigated for a crime.

You're right, Congressman Bass, when I think about that, it is most unpleasant.  Can I count on you to do something about it in Congress or should I expect more platitudes about mom and apple pie?

The best part about the TSA requirement is that it's not a law on the public books--that is, it's not a law that was written and passed by Congress.  I forget where I saw information on it, but it amounts to a "secret law."  I mean, law enforcement officials already have a rather wide latitude when it comes to applying "the law," but it seems that secret laws get enforced no matter what.

I bet that protesting ID requirements in an airport would get you questioned by Homeland Stupidity pretty damn quickly.

And what is so American about Mom and Apple Pie?  Fuck THAT.  My parents divorced when I was 9 or 10, and my mother NEVER made Apple Pie.  Ten points to the Congressman for invoking painful imagery! 

[Dreepa]

Guys....

#1.  The TSA does NOT ask for your ID a rentacop does.
#2.  Tell them you don't have it.  They will mark your boarding card with SSSSS.  You then must go through extra security.  Ever since Russell's Tussle with the TSA I have stopped showing ID at the airport.  It is a hassle and you have to have extra time but I have done it about a dozen times in the past year.
There is a thread on it. Search for TSA.
#3.  Bass and the Papers (I wrote a letter to the Concord Monitor telling them they you don't need ID) don't know what they are talking about.

[eques]

Damn!

And that particular conspiracy theory played so well at the Club last week... 

[David]

Don't forget the scotus ruled in their infinite unfailable wisdom, that upon request you have to identify yourself to police. 

[KBCraig]

Don't forget the scotus ruled in their infinite unfailable wisdom, that upon request you have to identify yourself to police. 

SCOTUS ruled, in the Hibel case, that you can be required to produce ID on demand if the state's laws provide such a requirement. They did not rule that everyone has to produce ID on request.

This is very similar to the Kelo decision, which did not rule that private property can be taken through eminent domain and transfered to private parties. The actual SCOTUS ruling (as horrible as it was), only ruled that the 5th Amendment doesn't preclude such takings, unless contrary to the laws of the state in question.

I believe both rulings are abominations. But when we discuss them, we need to be factually accurate.

Kevin